4.  The applicant was born in 1920 and lives in Istanbul.
5.  On 26 July 1978 the applicant brought an action before the Bakırköy Court of First Instance against her stepmother, Ms S.C. and her stepbrother, Mr L.C. (hereinafter all three referred to as “the parties”) and requested the annulment of their title deeds to several plots of land in the Ezine district of Çanakkale. The applicant claimed that her father had made a bogus sale of the plots of land to her stepmother and stepbrother in order to prevent her from inheriting them. The court ruled in favour of the applicant. This decision was quashed by the Court of Cassation on the ground that the Bakırköy First Instance Court lacked competence ratione loci to decide the case. The case was transferred to the Ezine First Instance Court on 18 February 1981. The latter considered that it lacked competence ratione materiae and sent the case file to the Ezine Cadastral Court on 22 September 1983.
6.  In the meantime, in 1980, a cadastral survey was conducted in the Ezine district and plots nos. 220, 221 and 223 were registered under the name of the Finance Ministry on the ground that no one was able to prove ownership of them. The applicant, her stepbrother and the Forestry Directorate lodged an objection with the Cadastral Commission. The applicant and her stepbrother claimed that the aforementioned plots corresponded to plot nos. 3, 4, 26, 5, 6, 25 and 112, which were registered under their father’s name in the Land Registry on 23 January 1951, 4 May 1965 and 7 April 1972. The Commission considering that it lacked competence ratione materiae, transferred the case file to the Ezine Cadastral Court on 23 January 1981.
7.  In the meantime, Ms S.C. and the Forestry Directorate brought separate actions with the Ezine Cadastral Court regarding the ownership of these plots.
8.  On various dates the aforementioned cases were joined under the same case file before the Ezine Cadastral Court.
9.  In the meantime, Mr L.C. died and his legal heirs joined the proceedings. On an unspecified date, Ms S.C. informed the court that she had sold all her shares in the disputed plots of land to her grandson Mr T.C.
10.  On 8 October 1997 the court ruled that plots nos. 221, 223 and a part of plot no 220 were forest and should therefore be registered under the name of the Forestry Directorate. It also decided that the remaining plot of land should be registered under the name of the applicant’s father.
11.  On 1 June 1999 the Court of Cassation held a hearing and upheld the judgment of the first-instance court in so far as it concerned a part of plot no. 220 (approximately 53,750 m2). In this connection it noted, particularly, that the area in question contained forty to seventy year old red pine trees, that it appeared as forest in the State map and that the plot in question had been previously the subject of criminal proceedings which had resulted in a conviction. The remainder of the judgment was quashed on the ground that the information contained in the case file was insufficient to make a ruling on ownership of these plots.
12.  On 23 December 1999 the case was remitted to the first‑instance court.
13.  On 15 January 2002 the first-instance court ruled that an area of 53,750 square metres was forest and should therefore be registered under the name of the Treasury and that  100,000 square metres of land within plot nos. 220 and 221 should be registered, jointly under the name of the parties. It further decided that 166,050 square metres of area within plots nos. 223 and 221 should be registered under the name of the Treasury with a note in the Land Registry regarding the parties’ ownership over the olive trees.
14.  On 30 January 2003 the Court of Cassation quashed this judgment on the ground that the information contained in the case file was insufficient to make a ruling on the matter.
15.  The parties’ request for a rectification of this decision was refused by the Court of Cassation on 1 March 2004.
16.  According to the information submitted by the Government on 26 October 2007, the case was apparently still pending before the first‑instance court on the date on which the present judgment was adopted.
17.  On 7 November 1990 the applicant brought an action for compensation for unlawful occupation before the Ezine Civil Court of First Instance against her stepmother, Ms S.C. and her stepbrother, Mr L.C.
18.  The first hearing before the court, held on 12 November 1990 in the absence of the parties, was devoted to procedural matters.
19.  In the hearing held on 12 March 1991 the parties requested time to submit their evidence. The court allowed their request.
20.  On 18 June 1991 the applicant’s lawyer requested time to submit additional information. The court compiled with this request. This period was extended in the next hearing held on 22 October 1991 as the applicant’s lawyer did not submit information regarding the plots in question.
21.  The next hearing, due to be held on 21 January 1992, was postponed as the parties were excused attendance. The court held two more hearings on 12 May and 13 October 1992.
22.  At a hearing held on 9 February 1993 the court, at the request of the applicant’s lawyer, granted leave to apply for the instruction of a Guardian (with special responsibility to coordinate inheritance matters) by the Magistrates’ Court. The next hearing was held on 11 May 1993 when the defendants requested that their claim for compensation also be joined to the present hearings.
23.  On 28 September 1993 the court decided to wait for the outcome of the proceedings before the Ezine Cadastral Court as it concerned the same plots of land.
24.  The applicant’s lawyer was not present at the next two hearings held on 28 December 1993 and 19 April 1994. In the meantime, the court joined the two sets of compensation proceedings. In the next hearing held on 6 September 1994, the applicant’s lawyer was not present. The opposing party requested a stay of proceedings pending the outcome of the proceedings before the Ezine Cadastral Court.
25.  The applicant’s lawyer attended the hearing on 24 November 1994 and informed the court that the proceedings before the Ezine Cadastral Court were still pending. At the next hearing held on 16 February 2005 he was not present.
26.  At the hearing held on 16 May 1995 a request by the applicant’s lawyer for an on-site inspection concerning the value of the olive trees on the property was rejected by the court. On 13 July 1995 the applicant’s lawyer stated that the present proceedings did not concern ownership of the disputed property but compensation on account of de facto possession of the property and that therefore there was no need to wait for the outcome of the proceedings before the Ezine Cadastral Court. The court dismissed this argument and decided to wait for the outcome of those proceedings.
27.  At the hearing held on 17 January 1995 the applicant’s lawyer submitted additional documents.
28.  Between 26 December 1995 and 9 July 1997 the proceedings were postponed in the absence of the parties.
29.  At a hearing held on 8 October 1997 the applicant’s lawyer informed the court that the proceedings before the Ezine Cadastral Court were still pending.
30.  Between 28 January 1998 and 3 November 1999 the proceedings were postponed in the absence of the parties. On 3 November 1999 the court decided to strike the case out of its list of cases until it was revived under Article 409 § 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
31.  On 22 November 1999 the case file was reopened following a request by the applicant’s lawyer to that effect. Between 26 January 2000 and 6 September 2000 the court postponed the hearings as the parties were not present.
32.  At a hearing held on 4 October 2000 the applicant’s lawyer informed the court that the defendants’ lawyer had died.
33.  Between 8 November 2000 and 28 March 2001 the court postponed the hearings as the applicant’s lawyer had informed it that he would be absent.
34.  In a hearing held on 16 May 2001 the applicant’s lawyer requested time to study the case file as he was newly appointed. The court accepted this request and the next hearing was fixed for 4 July 2001.
35.  On 4 July 2001 the applicant’s lawyer requested the court to wait for the outcome of the proceedings before the Cadastral Court. The court allowed this request.
36.  The hearings due to be held between 10 October 2001 and 17 July 2002 were postponed as the applicant’s lawyer had informed the court that he would be absent.
37.  On 30 October 2002 the court decided to strike the case out of its list of cases until it was revived under Article 409 § 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure since neither the applicant nor her legal representative had attended the hearing. On 19 February 2003 the court decided to consider the case as never having been opened since the applicant had failed to request a reopening within three months of its previous decision.